Bernard, if you are reading this, believing in micro evolution but not in macro evolution is like believing in seconds but not in hours - it is the same process. I hope that makes it easier to understand!
ambush No matter how you slice it, no pun intended, threat & fear is always the motive, always the intimidation, always the weapon...in a domineering ideology claiming love and peace. Mankind's greatest, most dehumanizing, immoral con-job.
~ Thank you, Matt and John, in this archived video, for still being relevant and honest. The callers are always amusing, even these in 2019. Cheers, DAVEDJ ~
Bernard asked "is tiktaalik our offspring?" Matt didn't know. I knew a bit about that find, but not that. Hmm. I was intrigued. I wanted to know. So I googled it. Here's what our friend wye kippy pedaya (alternate pronunciation) says about it: Scientists can't say whether Tiktaalik itself is the ancestor of any species alive today; there were likely several related genera making the same transition around the same time. But the marvelously preserved fossil sheds new light on how the vertebrate invasion of land took place, some 375 million years ago.
I'm willing to believe that Conner isn't Hamish, simply because - unlike Hamish - Conner's accent sounds real. Hamish is a troll. And I don't for one second believe he's actually Scottish.
@@jameswest8280 That doesn't mean he's not a troll. I just means he's capable of playing the same character face to face that he does on the phone. Again: He doesn't talk like any Scottish person on the planet actually does. He talks like what non-Scots sound like when they're mimicking a Scottish accent.
"Given that we have no idea and we can only draw conclusions based on our reason." We can also do the rational and mature thing and admit we don't know. "Agree that it could be a reasonable conclusion." IF it's a reasonable conclusion, it can be demonstrated to be a reasonable conclusion. No religious apologetics have ever been demonstrated to be a reasonable conclusion.
I've never understood how people think that if they know something then they stop believing it. It comes up a lot on the show. Even in normal conversation we say believe as knowing. I really can't even wrap my mind around it. I am human. Don't you believe me? Would you ever answer no? You don't believe I'm human? Just that one question alone. Yes or no answer. No explaining anything. The answer is yes, but to a person like that they couldn't answer , no I don't believe you are human because I know you're human. But answering only yes or no makes no an uncomfortable answer.
Religious apologists wants to talk about the laws of logic because anything is better than facing the fact that nobody can prove any gods exist. It's their way of "pounding the table", as the lawyers put it.
Indeed church is a social club of the "blessed"..hence some of them don't even know the contents of the bible they claim to believe in. Church is a time to catch up with mates.
I think this idea of the god character wanting a relationship with anyone is ridiculous on its face. According to THIESTS themselves, the god character wants to be loved and feared... just like abusive partners, this god character offers nothing regarding this "relationship" they talk about, but rather demands worship. The idea that this "relationship" is anything but one-sided is just plain wrong.
It's obvious that Bernard has no idea what evolution is as he keeps mentioning micro and macro evolution. In evolution, it is JUST evolution! There is no micro or macro. Basically, a lot of small changes eventually leads to a large change.
I love the evolution deniers that call in. They don't ever listen they are just thinking about what they are going to say next and are already trying to speak while he's speaking because they don't give a shit what he's saying. and that's why they don't believe because they already have this precondition thought in their mind and if it goes against that they don't give a shit what he says. We could literally prove evolution 2 as close to absolute certainty as possible and they would just not listen. They just don't understand it. They think they know what evolution says and everytime they speak they clearly show that they have no clue whatsoever. I don't claim to be an expert, but I actually understand what they're saying. And people just cannot grasp that a fish doesn't give birth to a half fish half human. We only live a hundred years if we are lucky. People can't comprehend the amount of time that this stuff takes and they expect to see something In two generations that happens over millions of years. It's so sad that they ignore the genetic evidence the fossil evidence the Visual Evidence and just completely let it go in one ear and out the other because it doesn't align with what they already believe and yet if they held their own beliefs to the same standard of evidence that they do Evolution they would never believe what they believe now. There is a plethora of evidence out there for evolution. We could throw out all of the fossil record and leave and leave only 10% of the genetics and then we could throw out 99.9% of that and there would still be more evidence of evolution than there is for God. and we could throw out 100% of evolution and that still would not add one bit more relevance to whether or not a God exists
If there was a show like yours in my country,It would bê the show with less viewers in the universe,because i live in Brazil,and in Brazil hás around 99,9% of people who believes in god. I guess that nobody does a show like yours in my country exactly because of It. My family doesn't accept much my atheism. When they talk about religion and i AM near of them,they look at me and they giggle a little. I use many explanations by science or lógic and because of It,sometimes they joke me around.
Our brain just being atoms moving around isn't that far off. It's not random. Just because it wasn't made by a brain thinking creating our brain. We are matter in motion. But it's all caused. Even if it's atoms moving around, it still making us think. Matt's light and dark example is a good choice. If we see something, that triggers a reaction. Porn is good. Your brain is just doing its atoms moving around, we see nudity, a signal from our eyes to our brain will cause the brain to change what it's doing. It's still matter in motion. etc. And knowing. I've NEVER understood where people got the idea of you can't believe anymore if you know it. It makes no sense. I'm wearing shoes. I know it and believe it. I think those people that think they can't believe and know are the same that think agnostic and atheism are different. Its the same. I believe not in god and I also don't know. It's like someone asking if they believe them. If your girlfriend asks you "do you believe I love you?" Would you answer no if you know she loves you? You saw your mom driving a car. Later she tells you she was driving her car earlier. She asks "you believe me don't you?" Would you say no? Because you knew she did. Do you know you are reading this right now? So you are saying you don't believe you are reading this? That shit definition of belief is faith. Exactly
John from Montreal is really cool. I like him. With regards to belief and know: In 2013, I came to realize that I did not KNOW if God is real, so I came to not believe that God was real. I cannot believe something to be case, if I don't know if it is the case that God exists. Could I believe in something I didn't know? Yes, but I see I'm not able to say that God existing would be a state of affair or fact but just speculation, meaning I'm just thinking something is the case despite that I don't know the actual state of affair on God existing. I guess I thought I knew God is real, so I believed God is real. But now I don't know God exists, so I should not believe that God exists, because I am at the level of belief where my belief is at the level of knowledge. I want my belief regarding God to be at the level of knowledge, where I want to know that God exists actually. Do I know God exists? No. So to believe God exists would just mean I would exercise a belief state that is weak not strong, meaning I'm not grounded in any actual content of state of affairs. So yes, if God exists, then I don't know. I feel the pressure to believe God exists, but I don't know myself, so I am not comfortable or confident that "God exists" is true.
The hosts always insist that they are not biologists, and then they continue to discuss biology anyway. If they are going to do this, then they should brush up on the topic. They consistently say that there is no distinction between micro and macro evolution, and they often accuse creationists of inventing this distinction. That is completely false. These terms were created by a Russian scientist, and they are clearly defined in nearly every intro biology book. All of the AP biology texts currently in use address the distinction between macro and micro. The fact that religitards are likely to misunderstand and misuse the terms is a separate issue, but the terms are in common usage among biologists. Richard Dawkins has spoken on this topic, and Claire Wulner (sp) also addressed it on an episode of AXP.
@@Crashawsome Given that English is my second language, I try to be careful in my choice of words. Please identify one example of hyperbole. Despite what John says, micro and macro evolution are not the "same thing." Every biologist knows this, and when the hosts distort the facts, they do a disservice to the argument. It would be more prudent if they simply avoided these questions until they have a qualified biologist on the show, which does happen from time to time. I have long lobbied for an actual scientist to be brought on at least once a month, to add weight to the arguments that are currently made by (admittedly) unqualified hosts.
Bernard, if you are reading this, believing in micro evolution but not in macro evolution is like believing in seconds but not in hours - it is the same process. I hope that makes it easier to understand!
Damn, that's good. I like that. Didn't think about that
"I think your understanding of evolution is micro..."
Priceless.
You know what convinced me there is no god? Trying to convince myself there is.
👌👌👌
In reference to Bernard it's always so so so sad to see someone get excited by their ignorance
Your understanding of evolution is micro🔥🔥🔥
Then, the guy agrees with Matt! LMAO!!
The black community accepted it for the same reason that Europeans accepted christianity...by the sword.
ambush
No matter how you slice it, no pun intended, threat & fear is always the motive, always the intimidation, always the weapon...in a domineering ideology claiming love and peace.
Mankind's greatest, most dehumanizing, immoral con-job.
~ Thank you, Matt and John, in this archived video, for still being relevant and honest. The callers are always amusing, even these in 2019. Cheers, DAVEDJ ~
I love this show! Keep up the good work! And keep on opening up people's minds. Good job!
micro evolution and macro evolution are not scientific terms, they are creationist terms.
Jevon hit that nail right on the head
Bernard failed kidnergarden!
"I think your understanding of evolution is micro". That is about the greatest comment of the decade. It's funnier and truer everytime I watch it.
Bernard asked "is tiktaalik our offspring?" Matt didn't know. I knew a bit about that find, but not that. Hmm. I was intrigued. I wanted to know. So I googled it. Here's what our friend wye kippy pedaya (alternate pronunciation) says about it:
Scientists can't say whether Tiktaalik itself is the ancestor of any species alive today; there were likely several related genera making the same transition around the same time. But the marvelously preserved fossil sheds new light on how the vertebrate invasion of land took place, some 375 million years ago.
Matt. For the analogy on the John call. Bucket for your beliefs. Jar inside the bucket for the beliefs you assess/consider knowledge.
Bernard, "am I less human than my parents then?" You're less human than everyone.
LOL
Like kent hovind says: you believe you came from a rock! No but I might believe you are a rock with all that brainpower your exerting.
Bernard, stop, think. That's your argument? That's all you've got? I feel sorry for you.
Jevon, you are an incredible person. Best of everything to you in your endeavor to rid your community of the enslavement of religion.
Bernard is perfect proof of Dunning-Kruger.
I'm willing to believe that Conner isn't Hamish, simply because - unlike Hamish - Conner's accent sounds real.
Hamish is a troll. And I don't for one second believe he's actually Scottish.
Nope, verified real.
@@jameswest8280 How?
EJ Sorrell, (Talk Heathen), met him in person, said he was a pleasant guy.
@@jameswest8280 That doesn't mean he's not a troll. I just means he's capable of playing the same character face to face that he does on the phone.
Again: He doesn't talk like any Scottish person on the planet actually does. He talks like what non-Scots sound like when they're mimicking a Scottish accent.
SeraphinaAizen1 He might have been hitting the Iron Brew a bit too heavy! Hence the strange accent?
I do wish John Iacoletti would have a chance to talk more.
i dont
With the amount of time taken for evolution given to a person they could splash a jug of milk into a map of london.
"Given that we have no idea and we can only draw conclusions based on our reason."
We can also do the rational and mature thing and admit we don't know.
"Agree that it could be a reasonable conclusion."
IF it's a reasonable conclusion, it can be demonstrated to be a reasonable conclusion. No religious apologetics have ever been demonstrated to be a reasonable conclusion.
This episode should be renamed Epistemology 101.
Most of these callers flunked.
Another episode where co-host john is hysterical and arguing with every other caller
I've never understood how people think that if they know something then they stop believing it. It comes up a lot on the show. Even in normal conversation we say believe as knowing. I really can't even wrap my mind around it. I am human. Don't you believe me? Would you ever answer no? You don't believe I'm human?
Just that one question alone. Yes or no answer. No explaining anything.
The answer is yes, but to a person like that they couldn't answer , no I don't believe you are human because I know you're human.
But answering only yes or no makes no an uncomfortable answer.
Poor simple Bernard. 😞
Bernard... Get in touch with harvard Universitys biological department... And educate yourself
Conner. Then Sean. Eeeee!
Religious apologists wants to talk about the laws of logic because anything is better than facing the fact that nobody can prove any gods exist. It's their way of "pounding the table", as the lawyers put it.
Indeed church is a social club of the "blessed"..hence some of them don't even know the contents of the bible they claim to believe in. Church is a time to catch up with mates.
Bernard, GO TAKE A BIOLOGY CLASS!!!!!!
I think this idea of the god character wanting a relationship with anyone is ridiculous on its face. According to THIESTS themselves, the god character wants to be loved and feared... just like abusive partners, this god character offers nothing regarding this "relationship" they talk about, but rather demands worship. The idea that this "relationship" is anything but one-sided is just plain wrong.
It's obvious that Bernard has no idea what evolution is as he keeps mentioning micro and macro evolution. In evolution, it is JUST evolution! There is no micro or macro. Basically, a lot of small changes eventually leads to a large change.
It was going well until Bernard came on whom is to evolution what flat earther's are to oblate spheroids.
Sean sounds like Brett from Flight of the Conchords. That NZ accent...ouch!
Nancy Reagan used to be a movie/TV actor under her maiden name Nancy Davis.
It's funny to have C.S. Lewis make foolish arguments based on why he has a working brain. C.S. Lewis's brain didn't work very well. :p
I love the evolution deniers that call in. They don't ever listen they are just thinking about what they are going to say next and are already trying to speak while he's speaking because they don't give a shit what he's saying. and that's why they don't believe because they already have this precondition thought in their mind and if it goes against that they don't give a shit what he says. We could literally prove evolution 2 as close to absolute certainty as possible and they would just not listen. They just don't understand it. They think they know what evolution says and everytime they speak they clearly show that they have no clue whatsoever. I don't claim to be an expert, but I actually understand what they're saying. And people just cannot grasp that a fish doesn't give birth to a half fish half human. We only live a hundred years if we are lucky. People can't comprehend the amount of time that this stuff takes and they expect to see something In two generations that happens over millions of years. It's so sad that they ignore the genetic evidence the fossil evidence the Visual Evidence and just completely let it go in one ear and out the other because it doesn't align with what they already believe and yet if they held their own beliefs to the same standard of evidence that they do Evolution they would never believe what they believe now. There is a plethora of evidence out there for evolution. We could throw out all of the fossil record and leave and leave only 10% of the genetics and then we could throw out 99.9% of that and there would still be more evidence of evolution than there is for God. and we could throw out 100% of evolution and that still would not add one bit more relevance to whether or not a God exists
Fossils are rare so if you find one it stands to reason there were a lot of them, and that they did breed. Smh.
If there was a show like yours in my country,It would bê the show with less viewers in the universe,because i live in Brazil,and in Brazil hás around 99,9% of people who believes in god. I guess that nobody does a show like yours in my country exactly because of It. My family doesn't accept much my atheism. When they talk about religion and i AM near of them,they look at me and they giggle a little. I use many explanations by science or lógic and because of It,sometimes they joke me around.
"A monkey turned into a man" 🤦♂
Bernard . . . go to school. Please.
Hey Bernard, go back to elementary school.
Our brain just being atoms moving around isn't that far off. It's not random. Just because it wasn't made by a brain thinking creating our brain. We are matter in motion. But it's all caused. Even if it's atoms moving around, it still making us think. Matt's light and dark example is a good choice. If we see something, that triggers a reaction. Porn is good. Your brain is just doing its atoms moving around, we see nudity, a signal from our eyes to our brain will cause the brain to change what it's doing. It's still matter in motion. etc.
And knowing. I've NEVER understood where people got the idea of you can't believe anymore if you know it. It makes no sense. I'm wearing shoes. I know it and believe it.
I think those people that think they can't believe and know are the same that think agnostic and atheism are different.
Its the same. I believe not in god and I also don't know.
It's like someone asking if they believe them. If your girlfriend asks you "do you believe I love you?" Would you answer no if you know she loves you?
You saw your mom driving a car. Later she tells you she was driving her car earlier. She asks "you believe me don't you?" Would you say no? Because you knew she did.
Do you know you are reading this right now? So you are saying you don't believe you are reading this?
That shit definition of belief is faith. Exactly
Religious ppl understanding of evolution : 🐒 turning into man.. 🐊 turning into a 🦆..OMG.. 😂😂😂
John from Montreal is really cool. I like him.
With regards to belief and know:
In 2013, I came to realize that I did not KNOW if God is real, so I came to not believe that God was real. I cannot believe something to be case, if I don't know if it is the case that God exists.
Could I believe in something I didn't know? Yes, but I see I'm not able to say that God existing would be a state of affair or fact but just speculation, meaning I'm just thinking something is the case despite that I don't know the actual state of affair on God existing.
I guess I thought I knew God is real, so I believed God is real. But now I don't know God exists, so I should not believe that God exists, because I am at the level of belief where my belief is at the level of knowledge. I want my belief regarding God to be at the level of knowledge, where I want to know that God exists actually.
Do I know God exists? No. So to believe God exists would just mean I would exercise a belief state that is weak not strong, meaning I'm not grounded in any actual content of state of affairs.
So yes, if God exists, then I don't know. I feel the pressure to believe God exists, but I don't know myself, so I am not comfortable or confident that "God exists" is true.
The hosts always insist that they are not biologists, and then they continue to discuss biology anyway. If they are going to do this, then they should brush up on the topic. They consistently say that there is no distinction between micro and macro evolution, and they often accuse creationists of inventing this distinction. That is completely false. These terms were created by a Russian scientist, and they are clearly defined in nearly every intro biology book. All of the AP biology texts currently in use address the distinction between macro and micro. The fact that religitards are likely to misunderstand and misuse the terms is a separate issue, but the terms are in common usage among biologists. Richard Dawkins has spoken on this topic, and Claire Wulner (sp) also addressed it on an episode of AXP.
@@Crashawsome Given that English is my second language, I try to be careful in my choice of words. Please identify one example of hyperbole. Despite what John says, micro and macro evolution are not the "same thing." Every biologist knows this, and when the hosts distort the facts, they do a disservice to the argument. It would be more prudent if they simply avoided these questions until they have a qualified biologist on the show, which does happen from time to time. I have long lobbied for an actual scientist to be brought on at least once a month, to add weight to the arguments that are currently made by (admittedly) unqualified hosts.
@@Crashawsome Yes, Forrest is a great addition who has been on for a few months now. AXP went 20 years with only a handful of scientist guests.
@@Crashawsome Both statements are absolutely true, so they cannot be considered hyperbole.